Doğu Akdeniz'de bulunan Kıbrıs adası tarih boyunca pek çok güçlü devlet tarafından yönetildi. On altıncı yüzyılda Kıbrıs Venedik yönetimi altında Osmanlı kuşatması tehdidi ile karşı karşıyaydı. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu 1571'de Kıbrıs'ı fethederek 1489'dan beri süren Venedik hâkimiyetini sona erdirdi. Kıbrıs kuşatması bir sene sürdü. Osmanlıyı zafere ulaştıran, Kıbrıs'ın kaderini belirleyen ise Mağusa kuşatması oldu. Bu kuşatma ve Osmanlı-Venedik savaşı pek çok şehir haritasında resmedilmiştir. On altıncı yüzyılda, Osmanlının gücü ve Avrupa'ya yönelik tehdidi yüzünden, Batı ile Doğu arasındaki savaş ilgi çekiciydi. Kıbrıs'ın fethi ise gözlerin adaya çevrilmesine sebep olup, harita yapımının da artmasını sağladı. Mağusa şehir haritaları, şehir planı ve önemli yapıları hakkında bilgi vermekte, ayrıca adanın işgal ediliş biçimini ön plana çıkarıp kuşatmaları resmederek, birer tarihi kanıt halini almaktadır. Bu makalede yer alan Mağusa kuşatmasına ait üç harita da İtalyan haritacılar tarafından yapılmış olup, üçü de Mağusa kuşatmasını Avrupa bakış açısı ile vermektedir. Bu üç haritanın analiz edilmesi, Kıbrıs için dönüm noktası olan bu anları gözümüzde canlandırmakta yardımcı olmaktadır. Üç farklı haritacının resmetmiş olduğu aynı kuşatma birbirinden çok farklıdır. Haritacılar kuşatmanın farklı noktalarını resmetmiş, vurgulamış ve kuşatma hakkında bilgi vermişlerdir. Bu makale, bu üç harita ve onların Mağusa kuşatmasına bakış açısını inceleyip, kuşatmanın ve şehrin yapısının haritalara nasıl yansıdığını göstermeye çalışmaktadır

Cyprus has been ruled by different powers in its history. As such during the Ottoman invasion in 16th century the island was under Venetian rule. The most important city during the conquest was the port city called Famagusta which resisted the invasion for a year due to its strong fortification. The capture of the city determined the fate of the island. In retrospect, the town plans of Famagusta were published in order to illustrate the confrontation between the Venetians and the Ottomans. The urban maps of this century illustrated the cities under the Ottoman siege in detail in order to reflect the clash between the Venetians inside the city and the Ottomans surrounding them. The maps were made by Italian map makers for the European audience, where they illustrated the important moments of attacks and defences of both sides. The emphasis of these maps is that the map makers prioritize the stance of the Ottoman army to show the Islamic presence as an image to Europeans. The paper examines the European point of view towards the siege of Famagusta. It focuses on the three Famagusta siege maps and their representation of the city, the Ottoman army and the siege by the Italian map makers for their audience. These three map makers created different representations of the siege of Famagusta. The paper includes three siege maps that first one made by Giovanni Francesco Camocio as part of his famous work Isolario. Inside the city walls private and public houses were depicted, but three public buildings stand out: the palace and two churches. On the land, outside the walls, there were Ottoman troops, in the background Ottoman tents and in the foreground troops on horses, some walking and some depicted with canons, advancing on the doomed city. The different types of troops are also labelled, for example “Ianiceri” for Janissary or “Stradioti” for horsemen. Rather than giving detailed information about the city, Camocio focused on the siege and the enemy, on details of the Ottoman army. However, the mapmaker did not depict the actual line of fire and does not show us where the Ottoman troops were actually attacking; neither did he offer any information concerning the Venetian troops’ deployments for the defence. The only dynamic element is the burning ship in the left bottom corner of the map illustrates the event which was mentioned several times in the texts. The second siege map of Famagusta was made by Stephano Gibellino. This map is the most detailed map that gives information about the siege, the Ottoman army and the city. The map has a reference table which gives names of buildings, bastions, and gates of the city. Inside the walls is illustrated in detail, showing not only important public buildings, but also the private buildings. Outside the city, the Ottoman troops and the ships were depicted, showing the line of fire between the city and the troops. The depicted lines of the Ottoman soldiers, the earth defences, and other graphic explanations at points were labelled on the map to show where the Ottoman troops Kıbrıs’ın Fethi: Haritalarda 1570-1 Mağusa Kuşatması 3 Turkish Studies International Periodical For the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic Volume 10/5 Spring 2015 attacked. The map combines, perhaps compresses, various important moments of the siege, attacks by the troops and ships, and also other activities such as men carrying supplies and the burning ship. The map maker presented a complete the image of the city and the siege in 1571. The last map in the paper was published by Giacomo Franco which had different representation of the siege than other two maps; it is a naïve depiction of the siege and the city. Inside the city there are few architectural structures, however, the buildings were not recognizable from their physical appearance, except for the two Venetian columns which were also depicted in Gibellino’s map. The walls of the city and the citadel are represented well as is the Venetian flag flying to show the Venetian rule of the city. Inside the walls he depicted soldiers running around and outside the walls the Ottoman troops were illustrated beside the Ottoman tents, canon and other paraphernalia of war. The map clearly focused on the siege and the soldiers, not on the accurate physical reality of the city and its buildings. Even though all maps gave information about the siege and the city they are different in many ways. Camocio preferred depicting the siege without showing any action; he created image with important moments and without focusing on the inner city. On the other hand, Gibellino created detailed representation of both the inner city and the siege; not just formation and architectural structure of the inner city but also detailed explanations of the siege like; fire line between sides, or the Ottoman defences. These two maps are considered more realistic and informative than Franco’s map where Franco’s map was only to show the siege rather giving detailed information about it or about the city. The map makers’ works reflected their awareness of written documents and the experiences of eyewitnesses. The clients of the 16th century maps were Europeans who wanted to know more about the siege and map makers depicted different stages of the siege; formation and names of Ottoman troops, the assaults, and fights between the sides. So the map makers also added their own artistry to satisfy their clients’ curiosity. Hence the main purpose of these maps was to inform people about sieges or battles, and so they represented the main events of their time, and became visions of the map maker and his audience. Maps became reports as map makers created detailed images. These maps provide the historical and the visual sources on the conquest of Cyprus by Ottomans. The maps played a role of telling and creating the image of what is going on in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. Lucia Nuti also stated “Visual evidence was present in maps, as a starting-point, as a source of information to be recorded from life and as a point of arrival, a mode of rendering information lifelike” (1999:108). They became the visual material of starting point of three centuries of the Ottoman Empire rule and transition from Christianity to Islam on the island. These siege maps allow us to witness the turning point in history of Cyprus.